Wakilii

Pulle & Another v Pulle & 5 Others (Miscellaneous Application 3798 of 2023)

High Court · [2024] UGHCLD 90 · 2024 Application Granted AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Application for interim order to restrain dealings with land pending determination of main applications for temporary injunction and review
Decision
Interim order granted restraining dealings with land pending main application

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The High Court granted an interim order restraining the respondents from selling, pledging, mortgaging, constructing further, or transferring suit land pending determination of the main applications. The court found that the applicants established grounds for interim relief: the need to maintain status quo, preserve the right to be heard, prevent imminent danger to the property, avert irreparable injury, and balance of convenience favored the applicants. No order as to costs.

Outcome

Interim order granted restraining dealings with land pending main application

Facts

The applicants, beneficiaries of the late Hugh Francis Pulle's estate, sought an interim order restraining the respondents from dealing with land comprised in Busiro Block 400 plots 91-103 at Nganjo, Wakiso District. The land was registered in the respondents' names. The applicants presented photographic evidence showing the respondents had deposited building materials, commenced constructions, dug foundations, built fences, graded the land, and made a road through the property. The applicants alleged the respondents were bringing potential buyers to the land. The respondents claimed they had occupied and utilized the land since 2008-2012, planted trees, and constructed houses, though they provided no photographic evidence of longstanding occupation. The respondents denied intentions to sell. The application arose from pending applications for temporary injunction and review concerning the suit land.

Issues

  1. Whether the applicants' application meets the grounds for granting an interim order?
  2. Whether the applicants are entitled to the costs of the application in the cause?

Orders

  • An interim order is hereby issued restraining the Respondents, their agents, assignees and all persons deriving instructions from them from selling, pledging, mortgaging, further constructions, transferring the Suit land and allowing any other persons to occupy and use the suit land comprised in Busiro Block 400 plots 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 102 & 103 situate at Nganjo, Wakiso District until the determination of the main application.
  • No orders as to costs.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Interim Orders — Principles for Grant
An interim order may be granted where: (i) there is need to maintain status quo; (ii) there is need to preserve the applicant's right to be heard in the main application; (iii) the suit property is in imminent danger to the detriment of the applicant; (iv) there is need to avert irreparable injury likely to be suffered by the applicant; and (v) where there is doubt, the balance of convenience is resolved in favor of the person likely to suffer more if the order is not granted.
Civil Procedure — Interim Orders — Status Quo — Alteration by Ongoing Construction
Where ongoing constructions on land are taking place during the pendency of a main application for review and temporary injunction, and such constructions would further alter the status quo, the court will exercise its inherent powers under sections 98 and 64(e) of the Civil Procedure Act to halt further constructions and maintain the current status of the property.
Civil Procedure — Right to be Heard — Constitutional Protection
The right of any party to be heard on any matter presented to court is constitutional and inherent under Article 28(1) of the Constitution. As long as a party files a matter before court, such person must be accorded the necessary facilities and environment to be heard for court to determine whether the matter has merit. This right does not require the party to present evidence satisfying the court of a probability of success at the interim stage.
Civil Procedure — Interim Orders — Merits Not Considered
In determining an application for an interim order, the court does not consider the merits of the main suit or application. The court considers whether the applicant has a bona fide application and whether their right to have it heard would be curtailed if an interim measure is not granted.
Civil Procedure — Irreparable Injury — Definition and Application
Irreparable injury does not mean that there must be no physical possibility of repairing the injury, but means that the injury must be substantial or material, that is, one that cannot be adequately compensated for in damages. Where land would be sold during pendency of the main application, and recovering it would be impossible, costly, and emotional attachment to family land cannot be compensated by money, irreparable injury is established.
Civil Procedure — Balance of Convenience — Exercise of Discretion
The balance of convenience should be resolved in favor of the person likely to suffer more if the order is not granted. It is not automatic that a person in possession will have the balance of convenience resolved in their favor; the court must exercise its discretion and weigh the facts and evidence of each case before resolving the balance of convenience.

Legislation cited (4)

Cases cited (6)

  • Souna Cosmetics Uganda Ltd v Commissioner Customs URA and Commissioner General URA (HCMA No. 424 of 2011)
  • Samwiri Masa v Rose Achen (1978) HCB 297
  • Wilson v Church (1879) 12 Ch D 454
  • Somali Democratic Republic v Anoop Sunderial Trean (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 11 of 1988)
  • Kiyimba Kaggwa v Haji Abdu Nasser Katende (1986) HCB 43
  • Digital Solutions Limited v MTN Uganda Limited (HCMA No. 546 of 2004)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Pulle_&_Another_v_Pulle_&_5_Others_(Miscellaneous_Application_3798_of_2023)_[2024]_UGHCLD_90_(3_April_2024)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.